India’s new rules on contaminated sites aim to break logjam, but critics call them incomplete

By Jag Jivan 

The Government of India has notified the Environment Protection (Management of Contaminated Sites) Rules, 2025, creating for the first time a dedicated legal framework to identify, assess and remediate chemically contaminated sites across the country. The move has been described as a long overdue but welcome step by environmental experts, although many remain concerned that the rules do not go far enough to deal with the scale of the problem.

The rules, framed under the Environment Protection Act, outline procedures for identifying contaminated areas, assigning liability, and initiating clean-up measures. They also establish the roles of district authorities, state boards, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and an expert board to oversee implementation. The framework will apply to sites where hazardous and chemical wastes have been dumped, often decades ago, contaminating soil, groundwater and ecosystems.

According to CPCB’s own definition, contaminated sites include landfills, waste dumps, spill sites, chemical waste storage and treatment facilities and abandoned industrial sites. Many of these were created at a time when India lacked laws to deal with hazardous waste. In several cases, the companies responsible have shut down or lack the financial or technical capacity to remediate, leaving state governments to bear the costs.

The rules mandate district authorities to prepare reports of suspected contaminated sites. Within 90 days, an expert board will conduct a preliminary assessment; if contamination is confirmed, a detailed survey will follow. Pollution levels will be measured against a list of 189 hazardous chemicals specified in the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. If safe limits are exceeded, the site will be identified publicly, restrictions on access imposed, and responsibility for remediation fixed. The regulations also provide for imposing financial and criminal liability on polluters. Where the identified parties are unable to pay, costs will be shared between the central and state governments. However, the rules do not cover radioactive waste, mining operations, marine oil pollution or municipal solid waste sites, which are addressed under other legislations.

Crucially, while the new rules prescribe timelines for initial assessment, they do not specify deadlines for completing actual remediation. This omission has raised concern among experts that the clean-up of sites may be delayed indefinitely, as has often happened in the past. “The new rules present very progressive legislation, which is progress in the right direction,” Chemistry World quotes environmental lawyer Gopal Krishna, founder of the non-profit Toxics Watch. “The rules were long due, but their scope is limited to only 189 hazardous chemicals. It has missed the opportunity to provide an inventory of all the hazardous chemicals and minerals which are used, emitted and transported in the country.” Krishna points out that as early as October 2003, the Supreme Court of India had ordered the preparation of a national inventory of hazardous waste generation and dump sites, as well as the formulation of a policy on hazardous waste landfills and shipbreaking. “This has not been complied with even after more than two decades. The absence of a comprehensive national inventory continues to cripple the effectiveness of hazardous waste management in India,” he adds.

According to official figures, 196 potentially contaminated sites have been identified across the country so far. Of these, 103 have been confirmed through investigation, while 93 are still under assessment. Remediation has been initiated at only seven sites, while ten more have completed project reports. The lack of detailed public information about these sites has been a consistent criticism by civil society groups, who argue that local communities have the right to know about the health and environmental risks they face.

The experience of Bhopal continues to haunt India’s regulatory history. The abandoned Union Carbide factory and surrounding areas remain one of the world’s most infamous chemically contaminated sites. Forty years after the 1984 gas disaster, disputes over liability and remediation are still unresolved. In June this year, 337 tonnes of toxic waste from the site were incinerated at Pithampur, but citizen groups complained that the process was unsafe and only a fraction of the contamination was addressed. The total waste incinerated has now reached around 900 tonnes, though questions remain over its final disposal. The Madhya Pradesh High Court is scheduled to hear the matter again in September.

Hazardous waste management in India has been governed by a patchwork of laws. The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules were first framed in 1989, but they remained poorly enforced for years. Following a series of Supreme Court interventions in the 1990s and early 2000s, the rules were revised in 2008 and later replaced by the 2016 Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules. Yet, despite these legal frameworks, India has lagged in implementing effective hazardous waste disposal. The 2003 Supreme Court order directing creation of a national inventory was never fully complied with. The apex court also ordered strict regulation of shipbreaking yards in Alang, Gujarat, where toxic waste from decommissioned ships was being handled without safeguards. In both cases, implementation fell short of judicial directions.

One of the persistent challenges in addressing contaminated sites has been fixing liability. In many cases, polluters have long ceased to exist, leaving no one accountable. In others, liability disputes between companies and government authorities have dragged on for decades. The Bhopal site is the most prominent example, where arguments over who should pay for remediation have paralyzed action. The new rules attempt to address this by providing for both financial and criminal liability. But experts worry that enforcement may once again prove difficult. Where the polluter is unable to pay, costs will revert to the public exchequer, effectively shifting the burden to taxpayers.

India’s new rules come at a time when many countries are grappling with the legacy of industrial pollution. In the United States, the Superfund program was created in 1980 to deal with abandoned hazardous waste sites, funded partly by a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries. The European Union has also developed strict liability regimes for remediation of contaminated land. Environmentalists argue that India needs a similarly robust funding mechanism, rather than relying on already overstretched state resources.

While welcoming the 2025 rules, environmental advocates stress the need for stronger implementation and broader scope. “Unless the government moves towards a comprehensive inventory of hazardous substances, India will remain blind to the true scale of contamination,” says Krishna. He also calls for mandatory disclosure of contaminated sites to local communities, independent monitoring of clean-up efforts, and public participation in decision-making.

The problem of contaminated sites in India is not just a matter of environmental degradation; it is also a pressing public health issue. Communities living near abandoned factories, waste dumps or industrial clusters are often exposed to carcinogens, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. Without urgent remediation, these populations continue to bear the brunt of industrial negligence.

The new rules represent a significant step forward, but the challenge lies in ensuring they do not suffer the fate of earlier laws—strong on paper, weak in enforcement. For the residents of Bhopal and hundreds of other communities living in the shadow of toxic waste, the question remains whether India’s legal system will finally deliver on its promise of environmental justice.